How would a prime Charles have fared against Marciano?

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by he grant

So he beats a prime Tyson and has a shot at beating Max Baer ... I honestly have come to believe that you don't believe what you post but simply do so to generate debate. There is no way to take such a post seriously ..

It really has little to do with Ezzard Charles and everything to do with bolstering someone's resume. "He'd Beat A PRime Tyson!!!11"

Where as someone like Holmes wipes out double the number of rated opponents and is considered to have a an inferior resume.

Shits and Giggles.

[El Bujia]

Originally Posted by slip&counter

He beats him relatively comfortably. So do the Old Mongoose

No. Never.

[The Mongoose]

Originally Posted by Hands of Iron

It really has little to do with Ezzard Charles and everything to do with bolstering someone's resume. "He'd Beat A PRime Tyson!!!11"

Where as someone like Holmes wipes out double the number of rated opponents and is considered to have a an inferior resume.

Oddly enough Marciano has double the wins over top 5 opponents at 10.

Cooney, Spinks, Norton, Shavers, and Bey were the only fighters in the top 5 when Holmes defeated them.

A case can be made.

[Hands of Iron]

Originally Posted by The Mongoose

Oddly enough Marciano has double the wins over top 5 opponents at 10.

Cooney, Spinks, Norton, Shavers, and Bey were the only fighters in the top 5 when Holmes defeated them.

A case can be made.

I like it. Very rarely seen it get that specific. Usually beating top ten guys consistently is considered good work. I believe Mercer was also amongst the top five when Holmes schooled him in '92 and handed him his first loss.

[MadcapMaxie]

Prime Charles would be more slick and quicker but also weaker and smaller, Marciano's punches would be more damaging. Marciano by late TKO.

[choklab]

marciano did beat a prime charles. Here is a post by another poster I found:

Charles wasn't all that much more dominant in the late forties than he was in the 1951 to 1954 post-title, pre-Marciano period. In both he had three close decisions. The 1947 fights with Moore and Ray, and the 1949 fight with Maxim were disputed. So were the 1952 fights with Walcott and Layne, and the 1953 fight with Johnson. The big difference is that Charles won 2 of 3 of his late 1940's disputed decisions, getting the nods over Moore and Maxim. He lost all three of his early 1950's disputed decisions, even though the press thought he deserved the fights with Walcott and Layne, and the film shows an extremely close fight with Johnson. One can certainly argue that Walcott, Layne, and Johnson were the equals of, or more than the equals of, Moore, Ray, and Maxim.

[lufcrazy]

As I say, i'll look into the losses to see my opinion of them, but at face value it has to be seen as slipping.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

As I say, i'll look into the losses to see my opinion of them, but at face value it has to be seen as slipping.

have you researched those losses yet? I dont think charles was anymore dominant in the late 1940s than he was during the post title, pre marciano period. apart from the walcott KO loss there is a case to say Charles had not been beaten beyond dispute since the war until he met rocky marciano.

If charles was any better a fighter at the time he fought barone, beshore and lee oma than he was against marciano then the press reports do not back it up IMO.

[he grant]

Originally Posted by choklab

have you researched those losses yet? I dont think charles was anymore dominant in the late 1940s than he was during the post title, pre marciano period. apart from the walcott KO loss there is a case to say Charles had not been beaten beyond dispute since the war until he met rocky marciano.

The reality, putting Rocky nughuggers aside who boost Charles to boost Rocky, is that Charles was a terrific fighter, a great light heavyweight and a pretty good heavyweight in an era of small heavyweights .. in addition, there is no doubt that after 100 fights and at age 33 he was past his best when he fought Marciano ... I'm not sure he beats Marciano at his best but I've never felt he was a gage on all time heavyweight greatness ... to me he was a blown up light heavyweight ...

[Grinder]

Marciano was a career halting fight. No man was the same after fighting him. Thus, people can deduce that a fighter looks bad after Marciano and therefore past it even before facing Marciano. This is not necessarily true.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by he grant

The reality, putting Rocky nughuggers aside who boost Charles to boost Rocky, is that Charles was a terrific fighter, a great light heavyweight and a pretty good heavyweight in an era of small heavyweights .. in addition, there is no doubt that after 100 fights and at age 33 he was past his best when he fought Marciano ... I'm not sure he beats Marciano at his best but I've never felt he was a gage on all time heavyweight greatness ... to me he was a blown up light heavyweight ...

Charles’s peak was 1946-1953.
I hear a lot about Charles being a light heavyweight. He was the same size as jack dempsey. Charles only ever featured in the light heavyweight rankings for two years 1946-1947, before that he was absent during the war and always less than 169lb. so he was a LH for a very short time.
Even 1947 is stretching it, of the 12 times he fought in 1947 only 4 of the opponents Ezzard faced scaled within the light heavyweight limit when he fought them - the rest all being heavyweights. By 1953 Charles had fought and beat more heavyweight contenders than most ATG's.

Both Charles and Marciano started around the same time after the war only difference was Charles also had a brief 28-3-1 record that ended when he was a 21 year old kid (that began when he was still in high school) before he took a 3 year break and started again.

After a clean break from boxing Charles was 55-7 against Marciano who was 45-0 and only 2 years younger.

[McGrain]

I don't think that the notion that Charles was at his prime for Marciano is sensible.

175 is generally regarded as his prime weight for one thing, the footage we have shows a fighter better generally on his feet and more fluid in terms of punching anyway.

[he grant]

Originally Posted by choklab

Charles’s peak was 1946-1953.
I hear a lot about Charles being a light heavyweight. He was the same size as jack dempsey. Charles only ever featured in the light heavyweight rankings for two years 1946-1947, before that he was absent during the war and always less than 169lb. so he was a LH for a very short time.
Even 1947 is stretching it, of the 12 times he fought in 1947 only 4 of the opponents Ezzard faced scaled within the light heavyweight limit when he fought them - the rest all being heavyweights. By 1953 Charles had fought and beat more heavyweight contenders than most ATG's.

Both Charles and Marciano started around the same time after the war only difference was Charles also had a brief 28-3-1 record that ended when he was a 21 year old kid (that began when he was still in high school) before he took a 3 year break and started again.

After a clean break from boxing Charles was 55-7 against Marciano who was 45-0 and only 2 years younger.

There are a few details left out ...

Charles started as a middleweight, then moved up to light heavyweight ... he eventually jumped to heavy for the money like most light heavyweights that do ... he also dominated at light heavyweight at a way he never came close to at heavyweight beating such greats as Burley and Moore ...

Marciano was a 200 pound guy that trained down to cruiser because it was his best fighting weight.

Dempsey was naturally larger than charles as well , an inch taller, four inches in reach ... at the 189 or so he fought Carpentier he was ripped. That being said I have always referred to Dempsey was a cruiserweight. Unlike Charles his biggest victories came in the heavyweight division .. that being said he was small as well ..

[Seamus]

I scored both Marciano bouts for Charles. (I have documented proof the second fight was actually scheduled for 7 rounds).

I have petitioned the various authorities to reverse these decisions as obviously Charles was the superior heavyweight.

[Hookie]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

I do think he'd slipped by the time he fought rocky.

He got stopped by a perfect punch against jersey, but other than that, he hadn't really lost since returning to boxing in 46.

After losing to jersey, he lost to him again, lost to layne, lost to valdes and lost to johnson.

He picked up many victories as well during this time.

I'd like to read up on the valdes fight more. I plan on watching the harold johnson fight later.

Unless i'm missing something with these losses, i'd say jersey was the last man to beat a prime charles.

From 1946 - the two fights vs. Rocky Marciano (1955)... Ezzard Charles only lost to Elmer Ray ('47), Jersey Joe Walcott ('51 and '52), Rex Layne, Nino Valdes ('53), and Harold Johnson ('53). A case can be made that the KO loss to Walcott should have been the only loss during this time period. He went 1-1 (1) vs. Ray, 2-2 vs. Walcott, and 2-1 (1) vs. Layne... 5-4 (2) vs. these men lifetime but a serious case can be made for 8-1 (2).

Charles went 39-1 from 1946 - the first loss to Walcott in 1951. He had already beat Walcott twice. The only loss during this time was a split-decision to Elmer Ray that could have went either way. He stopped Ray in 9 rounds in the rematch.

After the 39-1 stretch he went 14-5 leading up to the two losses vs. Marciano. He went 0-2 vs. Marciano then 10-13 leading up to his retirement. In my honest opinion Charles was slipping after he lost the HW Title but he was still very good for a few years after.